OCTOBER 13 — It’s encouraging to see capital punishment in Malaysia being shoved closer towards the gallows. In recent weeks, personalities ranging from Datuk Nancy Shukri to lawyer-activist Siti Kasim to MPs Liew Chin Tong and KasthuriPatto have all called for an abolishment of the death sentence, especially given last Monday’s World Day Against Death Penalty.

What I’d like to do below is offer one Christian take on the death penalty, arguing that it — and no persons — should be given the electric chair. The bad news is this isn’t the perspective a majority of Christians hold; the good news I’m right and they’re not (smile).

Anyway, let’s rewind two thousand years back. To Jerusalem…

Jesus and the Woman caught for khalwat

Once upon a time, Jesus was conducting an open-air seminar near the Temple. Along came a group of religious gate-keepers, known as the Pharisees who, unfortunately, weren’t considered "fair to see” by most of the rakyat. These self-appointed guardians of God’s galaxy came up to him, dragging a woman whom they caught performing a birds-and-the-bees act she shouldn’t have been doing i.e. the severest form of khalwat one can commit (although don’t ask what happened to the guy she was doing it with — so much for equality for women even back then).

Anyway, the Pharisees all but hurled the woman in front of Jesus and said, "Yo, JC! We need your ‘advice’, bro! We caught this nasty ho and our laws say she must be stoned — what say you??” 

A friend of mine once took a time machine back and he swears to me that he saw the Pharisees snickering and grinning their asses off. Because, you see, what these Totally Superiority Complexed people wanted to do was really to trap Jesus. 

Nothing like cutting a popular figure down to size (and Jesus was becoming very popular) by offering an impossible challenge. According to the traditional Jewish law at the time (also known as the Torah), adulterers had to be put to death. 

However, because Caesar & Co were ruling the land of Israel at the time, the deal (not always maintained) was that only the Romans could carry out capital punishment.

So, the plan was give Jesus only two options, both of which would have screwed him big time:

Option 1 (Sedition): Jesus says ”YES, execute her” in which case Jesus would get into trouble with the Roman authorities 

Option 2 (Heresy): Jesus says "NO, spare her” which would offer 120 per cent ‘proof’ to the Pharisees and their fans that Jesus was a false teacher since he’s clearly going against traditional Jewish law.

What did Jesus eventually do and say?

First, he bent down and wrote something on the ground. He was doing what many Jewish teachers did at the time i.e. use the dust as a whiteboard (or maybe he saw a cute half-baked pattern in the sand and he wanted to finish the picture, who knows?).

Then he delivered his coup de grâce. He said that, sure, let’s put this woman to death… but whoever is SINLESS may cast the first stone. After this, the Pharisees shut their gaps and went their way.

Why did the woman’s accusers leave? Because Jesus — without denying the woman’s guilt — issued the surprising reminder that such severe forms of criminal justice can only be delivered by clean hands. And nobody’s were, least of all people who hunted for reasons to accuse and condemn others.

The inclination to punish and destroy targeted wrong-doers must be more than balanced and chastened by the personal credibility of the witnesses, by proven concern for the culprit, by every community effort to set the person in question on the right path prior to pushing the Kill button.

Jesus wasn’t out to unravel the traditional laws, but there were certainly some parts of it he wanted to "upgrade.” More urgently in this story, the last thing Jesus wanted to acquiesce to was the blood-lust of self-righteous legal-religious experts (see Note 1). Clearly, restoring the guilty party (who deserved death) was a bigger priority for Jesus than sentencing her to lethal stone-throwing.

This merges with a key argument against the death penalty i.e. that it’s exclusively retributive in nature. It’s absolutely tit-for-tat. Tom killed Dick’s parents, so Dick wants Tom (and maybe his family) dead too. That’s it. No forgiveness, no healing, no reconciliation.

Lawyer Siti Kasim stated that it’s about revenge, not justice. I agree but would add that it reduces justice to vengeance. But Jesus’ idea of justice involves him sacrificing his life for people, which is like the furthest thing from what capital punishment is about.

Standing for the condemned

Of course, a Biblical passage like the one above (found in the Gospel of John) has been debated since the cows left the farm and they will continue to be argued over until the cows come home and migrate again. 

Many Christians will object to my use of this story to justify doing away with the death penalty. They will say that the Old Testament commanded capital punishment for murder;  that Jesus merely followed traditional Jewish law in calling for untainted witnesses (to an adultery) to begin the execution (in theory, therefore, allowing for the woman to be killed); that this episode only shows Jesus holding off the death penalty for adultery but is silent on other crimes; that Jesus doesn’t discuss capital punishment at all, etc. 

However, I think this story (despite its controversy and disputes) shows one unambiguous characteristic about the man whom Christians sing hymns to every Sunday: Jesus stands up for those condemned under the law to die as criminals.

His point, unmistakable to anyone present, was that none of us are pure enough to ”stone” anybody, even those whom society has charged as deserving of death. Paradoxically, the only one who was sinless in that episode was Jesus himself and he refused to sentence the woman to death (although he did tell her to quit her dangerous lifestyle).

This theme practically defines the Christian faith. Under the legal code, mankind deserves death. If justice and law are the reigning criteria, then everybody belongs in the gallows. We’re all neck-deep in unredeemable bull-sh*t which neither society (let alone ourselves) can do anything about. 

On Good Friday, Jesus suffered the Roman death penalty so that (in some strange amazing way), the world wouldn’t have to face the death penalty it had inflicted on itself. God kick-started his very own Mission Impossible project — which culminated on Easter Sunday — so humanity would get new life and new freedom. We would, in other words, experience a new way of being human — a way defined by love, mercy, forgiveness and self-sacrificial giving even for enemies.

It is, thus, mighty incongruous for Christians to condone or support the death penalty. If I am called to show unconditional love to everyone, even the worst of the worst (see Note 2), how does it make sense for me to say, "This man is a murderer and a rapist — kill him”? If I am charged to work for reconciliation and forgiveness, how is it right for me to declare, "This woman killed her husband in cold blood, she must not be forgiven — she must die”?

The New Testament brags about Jesus having defeated death. Christians should live in a way which continues this bragging via expressions of care, mercy and forgiveness. If Jesus beat death, then, it is difficult to see how Christians can be fine with sentencing others to death.

Note 1: Then again, it was very difficult to obtain the death penalty on the basis of Jewish law alone. There was just too many protective procedures required! It is possible to read the many warnings of capital punishment in the Old Testament as deterrents which God (who takes no pleasure in the death of even the wicked) preferred not to carry out unless absolutely necessary.

Note 2: If the death penalty is truly what God wants for the guilty, then Jesus’ executors would be among the most deserving of it. Yet, what did Jesus pray while he was hanging on the cross? "Father, when this is over kindly smoke ALL their asses to the seventh level of bleedin hell!!”? No. It was, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.